Behind Greens

[Jeff_Brauer]

Had an intersting discussion with a superintendent recently.

Super: Given that about 1% of golfers are ever over the green, I am taking out all my fw chipping areas behind greens as a waste of maintenance money.

ME: Never really thought of that. I have removed many back bunkers, simplified bunker shape and slopes, etc. How much extra are maintenance of fw over rough.

Super:  Well, not a lot, but every penny counts around here!

Times are tough when chipping areas are getting cut (or literally, not cut/mowed) to save money.

But, it did make me think about just how much money we should spend architecturally over greens above and beyond just catching up to surrounding contours.

Thoughts?

[Bill_McBride]

This sort of assumes that all greens slope from back to front!

[Michael Huber]

Jeff,

Do you agree with the premis that its not worth doing anything behind the greens becuase players rarely hit over the green?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

It gave me pause!  I always liked George Thomas theory that a shot over the green was better than one that missed short because it was more aggressive, especially on long par 4 holes.  He and I felt like you shouldn't have a harder recovey from a rough lie when you really hit a better shot.

That said, in a practical sense, I know many gca have fewer bunkers behind greens than to the sides and fronts for the same reason.  It makes less sense to build a bunker behind the green when it won't really affect too many shots.  Most get built as target or framing bunkers, or specifically to make a course look harder than it plays, by having many bunkers, but in reality, if they are back left of the green, they don't slow down play (or need much raking)

The comment just went to show just how tight things are for most supers right now, and how the real world does affect design theory.  Supers have spent the last two years reducing bunkers to cut cost, and now they are looking for the next target, even if potential savings are smaller.

[John Moore II]

I agree that most people don't hit long of the green. I do every so often, but most times, I don't. I guess its 'easier' to hit too little club than too much club. But as a rule, I certainly agree that the backside of the greens are generally the most boring parts of the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The problem with the premise is that it generally limits the over the green count to approach shots of the better player and doesn't account for the mediocre or poor player whose drive and second shot have left them short of the green.
Usually, recovery shots are left out of the equation as well.
While most golfers are short, you can't ignore the golfers who are long of the green.

I've found that being long on a green, especially a green sloping from back to front, presents an inherently more difficult recovery.

I can't recall seeing any course with chipping areas, universally, behind the greens.

If you accept that a back hole location inherently presents a more difficult challenge to a golfer who goes long, then how should that shot be treated.

I don't like "safety net" golf, especially in this situation.
Therefore I'm opposed to rough that would prevent a ball from rolling off the footpad.
Chipping areas behind a green facilitate a long ball rolling off the green.

But, I'd have to examine each situation before making a determination.

If a golfer is hitting a wedge into the green I might feel differently than if he's hitting a 3-wood.

The real question is:

What's the cost differential ?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Chipping areas can be very costly, or relatively inexpensive, depending on the grass types you're talking about and also on what equipment is being used to mow them.  I visited a course the other day (a consulting visit) where the superintendent was hand mowing 80 yards back from the green on some holes in order to improve turf quality.  He even said he'd hand mow the whole place if budget weren't an issue [at which point I had to lock eyes with one committee member to keep him from charging].

I guess that before I consented to change my design in order to save money, I would just ask the superintendent if he was doing everything HE could do to keep the costs down.  It just amazes me how many guys there are who want to eliminate bunkers, etc., so they can afford to keep their 21 mowers and impress everyone with what great turf guys they are.

However, I am sure that many courses will lose many "features" over the next 10-20 years, and most of them probably won't affect the golf all that much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I can assure you this course isn't unnecessarily keeping costs up.  Excluding water budget, maintenance costs are just $268,000 and they have a par 3 nine holes as well.......

[Ron Farris]

Very interesting topic.  My immediate thoughts come to the signifigance that over the green plays at Augusta National and the Masters, especially #12 and 15. Mowing extended collars can be expensive and so can the existence of bunkers.  I didnt get to see much of the Players Tournament this weekend, but that was the first course I became acquainted with extended collars.  It seemed that they were areas that the pro golfers had little trouble with.  There configuration of extended collars and bunkers would dictate the type of mowing and equipment used.  I have tried to incorporate extended collars on a couple of mid-level maintenance courses only to find that the average golfers didnt like them and the super didnt like the extra mowing, and I am not talking walking mowers.
I see so much area on golf courses mowed that simply do not need to be mowed.  Over the green is typically a hard shot - especially for the average golfer and especially on a firm and fast green.  So, the cost effectiveness really depends on the entire mix.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

If the budget is $268,000 and the course is in good shape, you should kiss the superintendent, and tell him to do anything he wants!

[Ed Oden]

If maintenance trends toward more fast/firm conditions, won't that bring over the green more into play?

[Matthew Mollica]

It's always struck me as odd that a poor shot ending up short of the green is deemed more acceptable than a poor shot finishing long of the green.

Jeff - ask your super to give you another reason why he shouldn't maintain the area beyond the green as he would the 20 metres prior to the green front.

I'm sure there's bukers on the course that only 1% of players enter. Is he content to let them become weed infested or neglected?

MM

[J Sadowsky]

That's weird.  I'm over the green on average maybe twice a round.  80% of that time, I'm long and left. (For the Record, I'm about a 24 handicap).

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, without more infoon this particular course, it's hard to say.  Pub vs Priv?  9 or 18, type of grass, mowed with what? other cultural practices? etc.  
How many greens have chipping areas? are all behind?
All to often, this can be a case of knee-jerk dumbing down of a course.  How much is he going to save?  As a grizzled old pro, did you offer up any other items which he may have employed to obtain the same monetary results without bastardizing "His" course?  (and did he really Chart the play or just pull that % out of his ass?)

My thoughts on the matter are that greens should be varied and unique but at t he same time have some sort of general commonality to them.  To achieve this, which tends to be somewhat oximoronic, requires that interesting greensites be found.  If this is not the case, then it is up to the architect to reach into his Bag 'O Tricks and create them.  With 18 sites, using chipping areas can be a good tool in acheiveing this, as the more varied features you can employ, the greater the individual differences can be.

What goes around comes around.  I remember when chipping areas were "rediscovered" in the 90's - when coincidently 100's of courses a year were being created and architects were constantly looking for was to differentiate their designs.  Granted, golf is not as much the ground game it used to be but, from what I've been witnessing this year on Tour, the Flier is back and more balls are rolling through the green and off (if the super is maintaining quick greens).

So, I guess the way this should be approached is to access the architectual significence of the feature and is the green being maintained in such a mannor as to reflect it?

[Ron Farris]

A super that I know on a muni didnt like mowing out the collar and approaches to meet up witht he fairways.  He quit mowing the connecting point between fairway and collar, which left rough in front of all most every green, in his justification he said it saved time and money.  The ladies put a petition together to get the world right and have fairway in front of the greens.  In the meantime he has thousands of trees that he mows around in unplayable area or well out of play areas.  Some of the maintainence mix can be mixed up.

[Bill_McBride]

This sort of assumes that all greens slope from back to front!

I bring up again the point that there need to be chipping areas behind greens that slope away.  Otherwise there isn't that much penalty - chipping uphill from the collar as the ball won't run too far in the rough.

Since it's usually not a good thing to have too many fall away greens, this means there can be a good mix of design elements as suggested by Tim above.